|
Instead, it contented itself with a reaffirmation 'Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
<br /> of the following description, taken from several 458, 470, 202 S,.E.2d 129, 137 (1974),
<br /> U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
<br /> 2258 N.C. 476, 481, 128 S.E.2d 879, 883
<br /> "Substantial evidence is more than a mere (1963),
<br /> scintilla. it means such relevant evidence
<br /> as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 3N.C. Gen. Stat. 5 150A-29(a).
<br /> to support a conclusion," It "must do more
<br /> than create the suspicion of the existence of 4Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C.
<br /> the fact to be established.,,.It must be 476, 128 S.E,2d 879 (1963).
<br /> enough to justify, if the trial were to a
<br /> jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the SId,
<br /> conclusion sought to bg4drawn from it is one
<br /> of fact for the jury.." 66 N,C. App. 375, 170 S.E.2d 84 (1969).
<br /> In other words, if reasonable minds could draw 7lhis principle is an adaptation of 5 10(1)
<br /> different conclusions from the same evidence, a of the Uniform Law Commissions revised Model
<br /> reviewing court will defer to the judgment of the State Administrative Procedure Act, 1970 version.
<br /> board; only when the court finds that the board
<br /> could not reasonably have made a particular find- 8Blalock v. City of Durham, 244 N.C. 208, 92
<br /> ing of fact based upon the competent evidence S,E,2d 922 (1956). Campbell v. Board of Alcoholic
<br /> in the record will it reverse the board for lack Control, 263 N.C. 224, 139 S,E.2d 197 (1964),
<br /> of substantial evidence,
<br /> 9"Absent stipulations or waiver such a board
<br /> It is important to note in this regard that may not base findings as to the existence or
<br /> the board is required to look at all the competent nonexistence of crucial facts upon unsworn state-
<br /> evidence in the record before determining whether ments." Refining Co_ v. Board of Aldermen, 285
<br /> there is substantial evidence to make a particular N.C. 458, 470, 202 S,E,2d 129, 137 (1974).
<br /> finding of fact. The substantial evidence require-
<br /> ment is not automatically satisfied by the intro- 10Craver v. Board of Adjustment, 267 N.C. 40,
<br /> duction of some evidence that, if believed, would 147 S.E.2d 599 (1966).
<br /> support the finding, In some cases, for example,
<br /> dubious evidence on one side of a factual issue 1 1
<br /> may be so outweighed by overwhelming, extremely Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
<br /> credible evidence on the other side that a court 458, 468, 202 S.E.2d 129, 236 (1974). For further
<br /> looking at the record as a whole would be forced discussion of this point, see Part 3 of this ser-
<br /> to conclude that the board could legitimately ies, the section entitled "Burden of Proof."
<br /> resolve the factual question in only one fashion.
<br /> CONCLUSION 12Id.
<br /> In summary, boards of adjustment must be 131d, at 470, 202 S.E.2d at 137 (1974),
<br /> conscious of the fact that they are dealing with 14
<br /> property rights that are every bit as important as Id. at 471, 202 S.E.2d at 137 (1974),
<br /> those resolved in courts of law. Consequently,
<br /> they must make every effort, consistent with the
<br /> necessarily informal nature of the hearings, to
<br /> make certain that the evidence considered is the
<br /> most reliable that can reasonably be obtained
<br /> under the circumstances. More particularly,
<br /> boards should consider unsworn testimony, hearsay,
<br /> and other types of secondhand information only
<br /> when no other evidence can reasonably be obtained.
<br /> Finally, boards must include in the record spe-
<br /> cific findings of fact so that a reviewing court
<br /> can determine whether a party has been prejudiced
<br /> by the admission of incompetent evidence.
<br />
|